Non-Key Tweets | Page 943 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

billybud said:
Don't believe any twitterati..

In the ACC, the conference is assigned each school's right as necessary to meet the conference's obligation under the ESPN contract (wording in GOR).

If the ACC and ESPN agree on a contract modification that does not demand a program's participation as a requisite to meet the obligations of the conference to ESPN...the conference has no hold on that program's rights.
Expand ...
I'm not sure why you're complicating things.

The GOR can't be dissolved unless a certain number of schools agree to let the other schools go.

That's not going to happen anytime soon.
 
upstater said:
I'm not sure why you're complicating things.

The GOR can't be dissolved unless a certain number of schools agree to let the other schools go.

That's not going to happen anytime soon.
Expand ...

You are not understanding the GOR..

A school's rights are owned by the conferenve ONLY as necessary to meet the conract obligations of the conference's ESPN contract.

That is the GOR language...it doesn't matter a flip about the GOR being dissolved...it is the ESPN contract that is controlling in terms of whether a ptogram's rights are assigned to the conference.
 
L Grant of Rights. Each of the Member Institutions hereby (a) irrevocably and exclusively grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the "Rights") necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement....

The ESPN Agreement is the controlling document....remove the requirement of that program's participaion to meet the ESPN contract requirwments and the conference has no hold.
 
billybud said:
L Grant of Rights. Each of the Member Institutions hereby (a) irrevocably and exclusively grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the "Rights") necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement....

The ESPN Agreement is the controlling document....remove the requirement of that program's participaion to meet the ESPN contract requirwments and the conference has no hold.
Expand ...
I'm curious, who do you believe has the authority to remove the requirement?
 
billybud said:
You are not understanding the GOR..

A school's rights are owned by the conferenve ONLY as necessary to meet the conract obligations of the conference's ESPN contract.

That is the GOR language...it doesn't matter a flip about the GOR being dissolved...it is the ESPN contract that is controlling in terms of whether a ptogram's rights are assigned to the conference.
Expand ...
You're not explaining yourself very well.

The conference is not going to change anything without the approval of conference members. Which means, nothing changes.
 
upstater said:
You're not explaining yourself very well.

The conference is not going to change anything without the approval of conference members. Which means, nothing changes.
Expand ...
Or ESPN. Contracts have two parties. At least outside of Florida…lord knows how things work there, but apparently according to FSU fans on the internet they can be changed unilaterally because they say so.
 
Contracts do have two parties...but rarely do you bite thr hand that feeds you...the Pac 12 said no to $30 million...

ESPN said Vaya Con Dios...
 
upstater said:
Who is this guy? The laundry guy at a B1G AD? The ex-Fox TV executive made clear that the conferences own the rights. why is this athletic dept employee making it seem as though that's not the case?
Expand ...
I believe this individual has posted on boards with several user names, including nebfanweenie, or something like that. He (or she) was always very pro Big Ten, which was fine, but then would turn into a troll each time he changed his user name.

Some have said that this person works in the Big Ten office, but I find it hard to believe the Big Ten would have someone so stupid and toxic on their staff.
 
I definitely don’t understand GORs. But it surprises me that lawyers of universities would even think of letting their presidents sign a twenty year agreement without knowing the terms between the ACC and ESPN. Or any rationalizations that this is how this business done.

I find it completely mind-boggling that attorneys from several schools (the Mag 7) felt the need to engage in a covert operation to try to find out the terms of the agreement between the ACC and ESPN. Still shaking my head.
 
Pat125 said:
I definitely don’t understand GORs. But it surprises me that lawyers of universities would even think of letting their presidents sign a twenty year agreement without knowing the terms between the ACC and ESPN. Or any rationalizations that this is how this business done.

I find it completely mind-boggling that attorneys from several schools (the Mag 7) felt the need to engage in a covert operation to try to find out the terms of the agreement between the ACC and ESPN. Still shaking my head.
Expand ...
In exchange for bundles of money, people will do things like this
 
billybud said:
L Grant of Rights. Each of the Member Institutions hereby (a) irrevocably and exclusively grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the "Rights") necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement....

The ESPN Agreement is the controlling document....remove the requirement of that program's participaion to meet the ESPN contract requirwments and the conference has no hold.
Expand ...
Yes we’ve talked about this. It is possible to shift FSU and Clemson to the SEC. It is not possible to move them to the B1G because ESPN would never agree. But you have to believe that a network that is aggressively laying people off and cutting costs, wants to pay double for the content of two schools that it already owns. The only way I see that is if CBS steps up to pay more to the SEC. Even then ESPN would be devaluing the ACC, I don’t see that.

If FSU can come up with half a billion, ESPN would let them go. Hence the investment bank angle.
 
HuskyHawk said:
Yes we’ve talked about this. It is possible to shift FSU and Clemson to the SEC. It is not possible to move them to the B1G because ESPN would never agree. But you have to believe that a network that is aggressively laying people off and cutting costs, wants to pay double for the content of two schools that it already owns. The only way I see that is if CBS steps up to pay more to the SEC. Even then ESPN would be devaluing the ACC, I don’t see that.

If FSU can come up with half a billion, ESPN would let them go. Hence the investment bank angle.
Expand ...
Or Fox can tell B1G to take those 2 schools from ESPN if they can get out of the GOR.
 
Pat125 said:
I definitely don’t understand GORs. But it surprises me that lawyers of universities would even think of letting their presidents sign a twenty year agreement without knowing the terms between the ACC and ESPN. Or any rationalizations that this is how this business done.

I find it completely mind-boggling that attorneys from several schools (the Mag 7) felt the need to engage in a covert operation to try to find out the terms of the agreement between the ACC and ESPN. Still shaking my head.
Expand ...

It’s amazing that when the gamed out the long term impact of the GOR that they didn’t see this outcome.
 
There is probably going to be a lawsuit filed within 6 months to a year by a women’s team claiming that these conference realignment moves are a Title IX violation, and they are going to win.

It actually won’t be worth it for schools to fight it. Women are almost 60% of college students today and the Demographic Cliff is a year away. No school wants to be on the wrong side of this issue. The major conferences need to come up with a workaround on this issue, fast.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
There is probably going to be a lawsuit filed within 6 months to a year by a women’s team claiming that these conference realignment moves are a Title IX violation, and they are going to win.

It actually won’t be worth it for schools to fight it. Women are almost 60% of college students today and the Demographic Cliff is a year away. No school wants to be on the wrong side of this issue. The major conferences need to come up with a workaround on this issue, fast.
Expand ...
Couldn't agree more. It has already happened. UConn had to reinstate women's crew.
Football and Basketball not going anywhere but schools will cut track and field, lacrosse and other non revenue sports in order to comply.
 
BigTenFan said:
Couldn't agree more. It has already happened. UConn had to reinstate women's crew.
Football and Basketball not going anywhere but schools will cut track and field, lacrosse and other non revenue sports in order to comply.
Expand ...

That is not what I am saying, but thanks for making this political.

My point is that the Title IX violation is requiring women’s sports to travel 2000 miles for midweek games to accommodate a conference created for football. The simple solution is to break off football from other conference affiliations.
 
ZooCougar said:
It’s amazing that when the gamed out the long term impact of the GOR that they didn’t see this outcome.
Expand ...
At the time Swofford felt it was a brilliant move because a) it removed the fear of the ACC being raided by the big two and b) it put ND in a situation where it remaining independent in football was no longer a possibility, they would have to join the ACC in football.

He felt surviving long term (by not losing marquee schools) would be how the ACC would remain a power conference while the B-12 and P-12 would over time be decimated by the big two. He also believed that at some point ND will not be able to continue as a football independent and that would be a major prize for the ACC.

What he didn't foresee was that the media contract could become obsolete well before they hit the homestretch in the GOR term. The security of the GOR became a prison for the higher profile members once they saw what they viewed as far that lesser schools (UCF in FSU's eyes) being in position to make more from media revenue than they were making. They never anticipated the landscaped being altered to the level it was and I imagine they never had an inclusion in their contract to adjust to current market if at some future point the market changed sufficiently out of fear of the possibility that it could lead to the contract being negotiated down.

It can be said that the GOR is the ACC's Maginot Line.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
That is not what I am saying, but thanks for making this political.

My point is that the Title IX violation is requiring women’s sports to travel 2000 miles for midweek games to accommodate a conference created for football. The simple solution is to break off football from other conference affiliations.
Expand ...
If the non-revenue men's sports are doing the same it would be difficult to argue that this is unfair treatment of the women participating in the schools NCAA sponsored sports. It is about equal treatment,
 
nelsonmuntz said:
That is not what I am saying, but thanks for making this political.

My point is that the Title IX violation is requiring women’s sports to travel 2000 miles for midweek games to accommodate a conference created for football. The simple solution is to break off football from other conference affiliations.
Expand ...

Equal treatment...men's lacrosse, soccer, etc....will have the same travel requirements....
 
FfldCntyFan said:
If the non-revenue men's sports are doing the same it would be difficult to argue that this is unfair treatment of the women participating in the schools NCAA sponsored sports. It is about equal treatment,
Expand ...

Tell the young ladies on those teams to “man up”. Let me know how it goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
1,265
Total visitors
1,372
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,979
Messages
4,377,419
Members
10,168
Latest member
CTFan142


.
..
Top Bottom